[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gyeonggi High School (Attorney Cho Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 28, 2009

1. On September 26, 2008, the part of paragraphs 4-b and 5-b in the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff is dismissed.

2. The defendant's refusal to disclose information to the plaintiff on September 26, 2008, on the part of paragraph 1, 2-2-Ga, 3, 4-Ga and 5-Ga of the same list among the information stated in the separate sheet that the plaintiff made against the plaintiff on September 26, 2008, is revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting disclosure of the information set forth in [Attachment 1, 2-A, 3-5] against the Plaintiff on September 26, 2008 (a claim for the information set forth in [Attachment 2-b] and 6-2).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2008, the Defendant received reports on school violence from Nonparty 2’s parents attending the third grade of the Gyeonggi High School at the time of the investigation, and determined that Nonparty 2 suffered continuous harassment from Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court) who was the same grade, etc., and held the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) on June 17, 2008.

B. As a result of the deliberation, the autonomous committee requested the Defendant to take the “conditional expulsion from school” (within seven days from the date of notification of the result of the measure, recommendation for the transfer to another school or the implementation of the alternative school education, and expulsion from school in the event of non-performance) against the non-party 1, and the Defendant issued a disposition upon the request of the autonomous committee on June 23, 2008. The Plaintiff’s request for a retrial was dismissed, and the non-party 1 transferred to another school around July 2008.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff, the father of Nonparty 1, filed a report with the Defendant by Nonparty 2 by exaggerationing Nonparty 2’s minor assault on two occasions in a continuous manner, and filed a report with the Defendant by asserting that Nonparty 1 had prepared murder against Nonparty 1. On July 1, 2008, the autonomous committee decided that the above suspicion against Nonparty 2 is not recognized.

D. On July 23, 2008, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 filed a civil lawsuit claiming damages against the non-party 2 and his father ( his father) with the Seoul Central District Court (2008dada265590). After requesting the above court to entrust the delivery of documents concerning the expulsion of the non-party 1, the defendant did not comply with the court's entrustment of delivery.

E. On September 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the information stated in the attached list for the above claim for damages. However, on September 26, 2008, the Defendant rejected disclosure on the ground that the above information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1, 5, and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) (hereinafter “instant disposition of rejection as to the remainder other than the information under subparagraph 2-B and 6 of the attached list withdrawn in the lawsuit).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of paragraphs 4-b and 5-b in the attached list among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, there is a burden of proving that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking the information disclosure will possess and manage the information to be disclosed, and in cases where the public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006).

In the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has a considerable probability of holding and managing the information stated in the attached list Nos. 4-b and 5-B (hereinafter “instant non-owned information”), and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In full view of the respective entries and arguments in No. 2 of the attached list No. 4-B as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no information listed in the attached list No. 4-B as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the content stated by the autonomous committee at the meeting of the victim and the victim’s defense teachers stated in the attached list No. 4-B as alleged by the Plaintiff did not exist, and there is no file recording and recording of the contents of the meeting of the autonomous committee, and it is recognized that there is a tape recording it, but it has been destroyed due to bad quality).

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure of the non-owned information of this case is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

3. Whether the instant disposition on the information held by the Defendant is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Act that guarantees citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration, public institutions should disclose information held and managed by themselves in principle, and it is necessary to strictly interpret such information as an exception to information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du20587, Jun. 1, 2007, etc.).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the instant information retained constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act.

(1) Whether it falls under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Article 21 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence prohibits a person who conducts or has conducted affairs related to the prevention of and countermeasures against school violence from divulging confidential information or data relating to a victim student or aggressor student that he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties, and does not intend to prohibit the disclosure of information related to the provision of non-disclosure of the meeting of the autonomous committee. Thus, the above provision does not constitute "cases provided for non-disclosure by any other Act or any order delegated by any other Act."

(2) Whether it falls under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

In light of the legislative intent of information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, "matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the same Act shall be deemed to have been listed as an example of information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, when a decision-making process is decided or executed, matters in the process of decision-making, or minutes on which a decision-making process is recorded, shall not be deemed to have been the subject of non-disclosure. However, if disclosed, matters corresponding to those in the decision-making process and matters in the process of decision-making process may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure, and if disclosed, "where there are reasonable grounds to believe that fair performance of duties would be significantly hindered" in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system and the legislative intent of information subject to non-disclosure under Article 1 of the same Act, it shall be compared with the interests of the public, such as fairness in the performance of duties, and the interests of the people, 20.

In this case, the minutes prepared by the autonomous committee for deliberation and determination of conditional expulsion from school with Nonparty 1, the meeting data that served as the basis for such deliberation, the student’s statement, and the student’s report, etc., as long as conditional expulsion from school is already issued pursuant to the above decision, shall not be deemed to be a matter in the decision-making process, but shall be included in the information subject to non-disclosure.

However, it cannot be deemed that the disclosure of the data causes a significant obstacle to the fairness of the duties performed by the autonomous committee. This is because the information in this case is the data submitted by or recorded on the basis of the data deliberated by the autonomous committee in determining the measures against the non-party 1 in determining the measure against the non-party 1, and it is reasonable for the plaintiff to seek access to the above information in order to identify whether the non-party 1 caused a conditional expulsion from school for any specific reason, as well as to seek access to the above information in order to determine the appropriateness of conditional expulsion from school and the validity of a civil damages claim related thereto, and it is a ground directly related to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is highly necessary to include the information directly related to the plaintiff in the scope of protection of the right to know under the Constitution or the right to request information disclosure under the law, and the principal of the school determines the expulsion from school after deliberation by the autonomous committee is significant in that it prevents unnecessary suspicion by ensuring transparency at the same time. Ultimately, the information retained in this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5) of non-disclosure.

(3) Whether it falls under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “the disclosure of information is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual if disclosed” shall be determined individually on the basis of a specific case by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by non-disclosure, such as the privacy of an individual and the relief of the individual’s rights protected by the disclosure. In a case where the court examines the illegality of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency, it is possible to combine the part of the information rejected with the information subject to non-disclosure, and where it can be recognized that the two parts can be separated within the extent that does not violate the purport of the request for disclosure, the part of the above information that can be disclosed should be specified, and only the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure among the dispositions of administrative agencies should be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2004

The part concerning personal information, such as the name, resident registration number, etc., of the data of meetings and minutes listed in the attached list 5-A among the information retained in the attached list among the information in this case, is likely to infringe on an individual's privacy if disclosed differently from the remaining parts. Since the profit gained by the Plaintiff due to the disclosure of the above information seems to exceed the profit gained by the Plaintiff from the disclosure of the information, it cannot be deemed to require disclosure for the relief of the Plaintiff's right. Meanwhile, in the case of information listed in the attached list 1-2, 2-A, 3, and 4-A, it is difficult to deem that the disclosure of the personal information could infringe on the individual's privacy or freedom due to the disclosure of the personal information, and it is highly necessary to disclose the information in order to realize the public interest by guaranteeing the citizen's right to know and securing the sound and transparent operation of the autonomous committee, and to eliminate the citizens' suspicion against the operation of the public institution.

Therefore, among the information retained by the instant case, the part concerning the name and resident registration number of the autonomous committee members among the information stated in No. 5 of the attached list No. 5 of the attached list constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, but the remainder does not constitute information subject to non

4. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information regarding the non-owned information of this case is dismissed as unlawful. The part seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information of this case on the retained information of this case is justified within the scope of recognition as above. The remainder of the claim is dismissed

[Omission of Information on Requests for Disclosure]

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)